IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Pass "end - 1" instead of "end" when walking the interval tree in
hugetlb_vmdelete_list() to fix an inclusive vs. exclusive bug. The two
callers that pass a non-zero "end" treat it as exclusive, whereas the
interval tree iterator expects an inclusive "last". E.g. punching a
hole in a file that precisely matches the size of a single hugepage,
with a vma starting right on the boundary, will result in
unmap_hugepage_range() being called twice, with the second call having
start==end.
The off-by-one error doesn't cause functional problems as
__unmap_hugepage_range() turns into a massive nop due to
short-circuiting its for-loop on "address < end". But, the mmu_notifier
invocations to invalid_range_{start,end}() are passed a bogus zero-sized
range, which may be unexpected behavior for secondary MMUs.
The bug was exposed by commit ed922739c919 ("KVM: Use interval tree to
do fast hva lookup in memslots"), currently queued in the KVM tree for
5.17, which added a WARN to detect ranges with start==end.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211228234257.1926057-1-seanjc@google.com
Fixes: 1bfad99ab425 ("hugetlbfs: hugetlb_vmtruncate_list() needs to take a range to delete")
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+4e697fe80a31aa7efe21@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
d6aba4c8e2